The Issue Whether or not on or about August 9, 1975, Martha L. Washington, a licensed vendor did have in her place of business, one (1) four-fifths brokenseal bottle of Barcardi Rum, Light, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 be imposed against the license of Martha L. Washington for the violation established through the allegation of the subject Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Martha L. Washington 1085 Palmetto Street Bartow, Florida
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Findings Of Fact At about half past ten o'clock on the night of December 14, 1977, Daniel James Cobb, than a beverage officer under the supervision of Lieutenant Robert E. Baxley, arrived at the Mezzanine Lounge at the corner of Intendencia and South Palafox Streets in Pensacola. He entered through the south door, went upstairs, and sat down at a table. An Asain woman who said her name was Charlene asked him if he wanted a drink and asked him to buy a drink for her, which he did. Subsequently, he bought a bottle of champagne for $18.00, at her request. Other customers at other tables also bought drinks for this woman, who went from table to table, occasionally stopping to chat with Officer Cobb. She asked him if he wanted a "chick," offered her own sexual services for $50.00, and said that he could have two girls for $100.00. Officer Cobb left the premises alone about midnight. At approximately quarter past eight on the night of January 5, 1978, Officer Cobb returned to the Mezzanine Lounge. Again he went upstairs and sat at a table. After he had ordered a drink for himself, he bought a drink for a dancer who sat down at his table. A second dancer, a blonde known professionally as Gigi, came over and offered to dance "for tips." Gigi, who is also known as Christine Haney Hampton, performed an impromptu dance after Officer Cobb gave her $5.00. At Gigi's insistence, he then bought a bottle of champagne for $30.00, which Gigi opened. When she did, the cork ricocheted off the ceiling and hit Lieutenant Baxley, who had taken a seat at a nearby table. Lieutenant Baxley had arrived 15 or 30 minutes after Officer Cobb, and was drinking bourbon, when he was hit by the cork. Maintaining the pretense that they were strangers, Officer Cob invited Lieutenant Baxley to join him for champagne. Lieutenant Baxley accepted, struck up a conversation with Gigi, then left with Gigi for another table. Shortly thereafter Officer Cobb left the premises alone. Gigi said to Lieutenant Baxley, "If you buy me a bottle of champagne, we'll have a party." She told him she would do anything for $100.00. Lieutenant Baxley purchased a bottle of champagne for $30.00, and he also bought three flowers for Gigi for $2.00, at her request. At one point on the night of January 5, 1978, respondent Julie Schofield came upstairs. When asked, she said Gigi could not leave early. Respondents purchased the Mezzanine Lounge from a Mr. Aliberti some three years ago. At the time it was a topless bar. For the first three months they owned it, respondents did not operate it as a topless bar, but they "reverted." The dancers were topless on the nights of December 14, 1977, and January 5, 1978. Respondent Julie Schofield spent five nights a week at the Mezzanine Lounge during that period. Respondent Frank Joseph Schofield visited the premises daily. After Gigi had worked for respondents as a dancer for two or three months, respondents entered into an agreement with her husband, Harry Hampton, who undertook the management of the upstairs portion of the licensed premises, called the "Hideaway Lounge area." Mr. Schofield described the agreement in these words: "[M]y mark up percentage is 600 percent or as close as possible to it. any additional income may be disbursed as he sees fit. At the even- ings close Mr. Hampton gives me a sheet showing total liquor and bar sales for the evening. The cash for the evening is also turned in minus whatever cash disburs[e]ments were made. Most of the excess profit is derived from cocktail sales at 1000 percent mark up and bonus money is handed out from that by Mr. Hampton as determined by the number of drinks they had. This is approximately 30 percent of the drink price." Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. The more drinks the girls sold, the more money they made. Respondents terminated this agreement after hearing that Mr. Hampton was inviting bar patrons elsewhere for "exotic treats" and "personalized service." Respondents made no investigation of Mr. Hampton before hiring him. On January 18, 1978, Officer Cob and Lieutenant Baxley arrested Christine Hampton and the Asian woman who had identified herself as Charlene, who is also known as Phung Kim Holland. Although both women were charged criminally, neither was convicted. Ms. Holland was acquitted after trial by jury; Ms. Hampton pleaded nolo contendere, but adjudication was withheld. After the arrests, respondents "fired a few people." In addition, respondents posted a sign on a wall urging patrons to report the solicitation of drinks to the management and placed "table tents" imprinted with the same message on various tables; and they also installed more lights on the licensed premises. At one point, Mr. Schofield asked some of the employees of the Mezzanine Lounge not to solicit for prostitution. Petitioner instituted the present proceedings by serving respondents with a notice to show cause on March 17, 1978. An informal conference on March 24, 1978, was attended by Mr. Schofield and Lieutenant Baxley. Respondents were not represented by counsel at the informal conference. On May 23, 1978, respondents' counsel wrote Lieutenant Baxley suggesting that the notice to show cause be dismissed "[i]n light of the outcome of the criminal cases." Respondents' exhibit No. 1. On August 24, 1978, the petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing, even though respondents have never made demand for formal hearing. On August 28, 1978, notice of hearing issued setting the final hearing for September 29, 1978, but the hearing was continued on application of respondents' counsel, according to the file. The final hearing was next noticed for December 13, 1979. On December 13, 1979, according to the file, counsel for petitioner sought a continuance on grounds of Lieutenant Baxley's illness and represented that counsel for respondents had no objection to the continuance; and the final hearing was again continued. Also on December 13, 1978, respondents' counsel (who had previously corresponded with counsel for petitioner, respondents' exhibit No. 3) wrote a letter to Lieutenant Baxley "objecting to any kind of hearing . . . because so much time has transpired [sic] since the original offense." Respondents' exhibit No. 2. Respondents' counsel did not send copies of this letter either to petitioner's counsel or to the hearing officer.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner impose a civil penalty against respondents' license in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert G. Kerrigan, Esquire 224 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined on the grounds stated in Petitioner's Notice to Show Cause dated April 13, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent possessed alcoholic beverage license numbered 68-776, Series 2-COP, located at 1968 Unit A 27th Street, Sarasota, Florida, where he operated the Town Hall Restaurant. During the last year and a half prior to April 13, 1983, officers of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) have been called to Respondent's place of business on a frequent basis for various infractions of the law. Numerous narcotics arrests have been made outside of, but in the immediate vicinity of, the Respondent's restaurant, and there have been responses to other crimes, such as assaults and robberies, in the area. Sgt. Peter Viana, SPD, works primarily in this area of town, which contains primarily black oriented businesses, and has smelled marijuana in Respondent's business place on several occasions. In addition, SPD Detective James Fulton related that police intelligence within that same time frame, the last year and a half, indicates repeated sales of narcotics both inside and outside Respondent's establishment. Beverage Officer Keith Hamilton was assigned to an investigation of bars and restaurants in the area of Respondent's business during late March and early April 1, 1983. He is a qualified narcotics investigator and is familiar with the appearance, smell, and taste of such substances as marijuana and cocaine. Early in the morning of March 22, 1983, Hamilton entered the Town Hall Restaurant and went up to the bar to order a beer. There he met "Precious," the barmaid/bartender, who is a male transvestite. During the course of the conversation, Hamilton asked Precious if he could do him a favor. When Precious agreed, Hamilton gave $10 to Precious, who then went over to a patron elsewhere in the room. When Precious returned to Hamilton, he gave him his change and a paper bag which contained a substance later analyzed at the laboratory of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and determined to be 1.7 grams of marijuana. All tests referred to herein were accomplished by this laboratory. Later that same morning, having returned to the Town Hall Restaurant, Hamilton asked Precious about the availability of cocaine. Precious said he did not know much about it, but would try. Hamilton gave $23 to Precious, who went over to another customer in the bar, made a purchase of some substance, returned to the bar, and after waiting on one other customer, transferred what he had purchased to Hamilton. This substance was subsequently tested and determined to be cocaine. During this second visit to the Town Hall, Hamilton observed other individuals in the building smoking what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes and what he believed to be two sales of the substance. He held this opinion because of the way the cigarettes were wrapped, burned, and held in the peculiar fashion of the marijuana "joint." That same evening, March 22, 1983, Hamilton went to the Town Hall for the third time and this time met with another male transvestite bartender known as "Buffy." He asked Buffy about the possibility of getting some marijuana, but Buffy was reluctant and told him to deal direct. Therefore, Hamilton called over one of the other patrons who he knew to be a dealer and purchased what was subsequently tested and identified as 1.6 grams of marijuana. Again, at this time, he observed other patrons at the pool table in the building to be smoking what he believed was marijuana. About 11:00 p.m. that same night, Hamilton made a fourth buy in the Town Hall Restaurant, this time through Precious, who followed the prior procedure and made the purchase from an unidentified black male. This time, the substance tested out to be 1.6 grams of marijuana. When Hamilton went into the Town Hall again on March 23, 1983, Buffy was on duty and again refused to be the direct conduit for a purchase of marijuana. However, Hamilton contacted other patrons in the restaurant from whom he purchased two $6 bags of what was later tested and identified as marijuana. Again, at this time, no attempt was made to hide the marijuana, and Hamilton observed other people in the bar smoking what he believed to be marijuana. Hamilton again returned to the Town Hall Restaurant on the morning of March 24, 1983. When he entered, he saw neither Precious nor Buffy and was, instead, approached by the Respondent. Hamilton ordered a chicken sandwich, but Smith told him no food was ready. He then asked Smith if he knew where he, Hamilton, could get some marijuana, but Smith said he did not. Hamilton started out of the building, but happened to notice that one of the employees who was mopping the floor was one of the same people from whom his prior purchases were made. On the spot, with Smith standing by, Hamilton then purchased another 1.7 grams of what was tested and identified as marijuana. Later that day, March 24, 1983, Hamilton again went into the Town Hall, approached and was again rebuffed by Buffy, and instead made a purchase from some other unidentified individual in the bar. At that time, there were few patrons in the bar, and Hamilton observed the smoking of what appeared to him to be marijuana. When Hamilton entered the bar on March 25, 1983, Precious refused to deal with him and suggested that he deal with another black male named "Georgia." After observing Georgia make sales of some substance to other patrons, Hamilton approached him and purchased what was later tested and found to be marijuana. During the entire time Hamilton was in the Town Hall Restaurant on this date, he observed the open smoking of what he identified as marijuana from the method of smoking and the smell. Hamilton was again refused by Buffy ire the Town Hall on April 9, 1983. However, there was another patron at the bar who agreed to get him some stuff" and who then left the area. Shortly afterwards, a black male named "Sylvester" came into the restaurant, approached him, and sold him $20 worth of what was later tested and identified as cocaine. During this entire time, Buffy, an employee of Respondent, was standing behind and across the bar directly across from the sale--a distance of less than three feet. Hamilton's instructions prior to the operation were to attempt to purchase drugs in not only this establishment but also in others in the area, and he did. He offered no inducements separate from the purchase, though an informant accompanying him on one visit offered sexual favors to Buffy. A raid was conducted at the Town Hall on April 13, 1983, by agents of Petitioner and SPD. Marijuana was found on only one patron. Respondent Smith has had his beverage license for this establishment for approximately 14 months, during which time he has had no problem with Petitioner or other law enforcement authorities. It is his practice when hiring personnel to tell them to keep drugs out. His hours at the bar are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday and from 11:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. While at this establishment, he is usually near the pool table. Though he does not recall being approached by Hamilton at the bar, he agrees that what Hamilton said transpired is probably correct, except for the sale of drugs. Respondent has a good reputation in the community as a law-abiding citizen. Several witnesses who have been in the Town Hall at different times of the day and night claim not to have seen anyone using drugs there.
Recommendation On the basis of the facts and conclusions above, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for one year and that he pay a fine of $100 for each violation as alleged in Allegations 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 in the Notice to Show Cause dated April 13, 1983. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold H. Moore, Esquire Post Office Box 4311 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, B & K Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Nipper's Restaurant (Respondent) held Alcoholic Beverage, Special Restaurant License No. 60-02856 SRX (SRX License). Respondent's SRX License was issued on July 7, 1988. Respondent's SRX License requires Respondent to maintain, among other things, 2,500 square feet of serving area, a minimum of 150 seats for seating, and 51 percent of gross revenue from food and non-alcoholic beverages sales. Respondent has a president, Arthur Barakos, who is a 51 percent shareholder. On September 30, 1996, a special agent of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Petitioner) performed an SRX License inspection of Respondent. Petitioner's agent requested Barakos to produce, among other things, Respondent's last three months of alcohol and food records, z-tapes,2 guest receipts, and ledger books, if any. He was unable to produce the requested records, indicating that his accountant had possession of them. Petitioner's agent reminded Barakos that, as a requirement of the SRX License, the records must be maintained on Respondent's premises. She informed him that she would return at a later date to review the requested records. On October 8, 1996, Petitioner's agent returned to Respondent to perform the SRX License inspection. She requested to review the same records. As before, Barakos informed Petitioner's agent that he did not have the requested records. Barakos indicated to Petitioner's agent that the only records that he maintained were guest checks which had credit card charges; he did not maintain other guest checks or z-tapes. Further, he indicated that his procedure was to copy the information from z-tapes and guest receipts on separate sheets of paper, referred to as sales sheets, and to provide his accountant with the sales sheets. Respondent's accountant performs a "compilation" on a monthly basis of monthly sales from information provided to her by Barakos. Monthly, the accountant meets with Barakos and obtains from him sales sheets showing daily receipts and total sales per day for the entire month. Also, Barakos provides the accountant with bank statements, purchase orders, stubs from guest checks with credit card charges and, occasionally, z-tapes. At times, the accountant obtains some of the information over the telephone from Barakos. She inputs the information from the sales sheets on computer. From the information provided, the accountant totals the daily receipts and computes sales tax. Afterwards, she returns to Barakos all of the items that he provided to her. The accountant is unable to verify or certify the accuracy of the monthly sales records. At the inspection, Barakos did provide Petitioner's agent with sales sheets. However, the sales sheets failed to differentiate between food and alcoholic beverages. Without the requested records which are the original documentation, no verification of food and alcohol revenue could be made by Petitioner's agent. Therefore, she was unable to determine whether 51 percent of Respondent's gross revenue was from food and non-alcoholic beverages sales. Further, regarding maintaining past records, Barakos had maintained his almost nine years of records, including z- tapes, in boxes located in a shed. He discarded the boxes of records after they got wet and became moldy, not believing that he would ever be audited by Petitioner. Barakos discarded the records without improper motive. Because he had discarded the records, Barakos was unable to produce them to Petitioner's agent. At no time material hereto did Petitioner receive from Respondent a request to maintain its records at a location other than on Respondent's premises. Additionally, at the inspection, Petitioner's agent inspected Respondent's seating. She found Respondent not to be in compliance with the required minimum seating of 150 seats, having only 125 seats. Barakos indicated that he would add the additional seats without delay to bring Respondent into compliance. Further, Petitioner's agent inspected Respondent's square footage. She found Respondent to be in compliance with the minimum square footage requirement of 2,500 square feet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order: Imposing a $1,000 civil penalty against B & K Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Nipper's Restaurant; and Revoking the Alcoholic Beverage Special Restaurant License of B & K Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Nipper's Restaurant, i.e., License No. 60-02856 SRX without prejudice to obtain any other type license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for 5 years, with the revocation being suspended under terms and conditions that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should fine the Respondent up to $1,000 for alleged violation of Section 561.14(3), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Billy Boy’s of Pinellas, Inc., d/b/a Big Shots, holds a temporary Series 4-COP license, license number 62- 00601, for licensed premises at 3934 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The previous licensee for the premises transferred the license to the Respondent, effective July 3, 1996. The sole owner and corporate officer of the Respondent is William Kovic. Within a week after assuming ownership and control of the licensed premises, the Respondent’s head bartender told him that several items of bar supplies and inventory needed to be replenished, including Budweiser beer in cans. Kovic told his bartender that he was going to the nearby Publix and would buy the needed items there. He took money out of the bar cash register to pay for the purchases. Kovic returned with the Publix purchases a short time later and gave them to his bartender for her use. Included among the Publix purchases were four 12-packs of Budweiser beer in cans. The bartender placed some of the Budweiser beer in the bar’s stock of inventory for resale and resold it in the course of bar business. The rest of the beer was stored in the cooler. Two days later, the bartender told Kovic that some of his customers were requesting particular brands of beer that were not available at the bar. Included among these were Icehouse, Red Dog and Michelob Lite. She told Kovic that these customers likely would take their business elsewhere if the bar could not sell their preferred brands. Once again, Kovic said he would go to Publix to get them and took money out of the bar cash register to pay for them. A short time later, Kovic returned to the bar with a case each of Icehouse, Red Dog and Michelob Lite. As before, the bartender placed some of the beer in the bar’s stock of inventory for resale and resold it in the course of bar business. The rest of the beer was stored in the cooler. The Respondent maintained receipts for these beer purchases among his other receipts evidencing purchases of alcoholic beverages for resale at the bar. Publix is a licensed retail vendor of beer. It is not licensed as a manufacturer, bottler or distributor. Nor is Publix involved in any pool buying group with the Respondent. Although Kovic did not testify, his defense to the charge in this case was that he bought the beer in question for use at a private party at his parents’ motel room thrown to celebrate his new bar. His former and current managers testified in support of this defense. Both testified that beer indeed was purchased for a private party and that it was set aside and labeled as such and was not sold at the bar. The former manager testified that it was his error to place the receipts in with the other receipts evidencing purchases of alcoholic beverages for resale at the bar. The testimony and evidence raised questions as to existence and time of the alleged party. But even if the testimony of Kovic’s former and current managers was truthful, neither was a witness to any conversation between Kovic and his former head bartender concerning these beer purchases, and neither could directly dispute the former bartender’s testimony that at least some of the Publix beer purchases were resold at retail. Both Kovic’s former and current managers also testified that the former head bartender, who informed the DABT of these alleged violations, was fired on or about July 15, 1996, was disgruntled, and had a motive to falsely accuse Kovic. However, they had no direct information from which they could conclude that the former head bartender was lying; they had to take Kovic’s word for it. While it is possible that the former head bartender was lying, it is found to be more likely that Kovic’s defense was fabricated and that his former and current managers testified to help Kovic avoid license discipline.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the DABT), enter the final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.14(3), Fla. Stat. (1995); and (2) imposing a $1,000 fine.RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 FAX FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1997.
The Issue Whether or not on or about November 1, 1976, Stella Lee Hill, licensed under the beverage laws, and/or her agent, servant, or employee, to-wit: Jacob Hill, did sell or cause to be sold or delivered intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer to-wit: one-half pint labeled Seagrams Extra Dry Gin, in Santa Rosa County, that which has voted against the sale of such intoxicating liquors, wines or beer, contrary to Section 568.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact Stella Lee Hill is the holder of license no. 67-129, series 1-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. Stella Lee Hill has held this license from October 1, 1976, up to and including the date of hearing. This license is held to operate at Munson Highway, Route 6, Box 190, Milton, Florida, and to trade as Vonnie Branch Tip Inn, the trade name of the licensed premises. A series 1-COP license is a license which entitles the licensee to make beer sales for consumption on the premises. Santa Rosa County, Florida through its voters has determined that only beer may be sold in that county, of a weight 3.2% alcoholic content. No other form of alcoholic beverages may be sold in Santa Rosa County. On November 1, 1976, around 7:00 p.m., Central Standard Time, agent Roy Cotton, of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage met with an undercover agent, one Robert Lewis. Robert Lewis was not shown to be a member of any law enforcement agency. The meeting took place on the east side of Milton, Florida, in an open field. At that time a discussion was entered into between Cotton and Lewis on the subject of making an alcoholic beverage purchase of unauthorized alcoholic beverages, at the Respondent's licensed premises. Cotton search Lewis to make sure that he did not have any money or alcoholic beverages on his person and also search Lewis' automobile to insure that no alcoholic beverage was in that automobile. After making such search, Cotton provided Lewis with $5.00 in United States currency to make the aforementioned purchase. Lewis drove to the licensed premises in one automobile and Cotton in another. Cotton stationed himself so that he could see the licensed premises and the surrounding buildings, but did not go in the licensed premises. Lewis entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises spoke with the brother of the licensee, one Jacob Hill and asked for a half pint bottle of liquor. Jacob Hill left the licensed premises and went to an adjacent house which was the home of the mother of the licensee and returned to the licensed premises and presented Lewis with a one half pint bottle of Seagrams Extra Dry Gin. Lewis paid Jacob Hill for the half pint bottle of Seagrams Extra Dry Gin, a liquor containing more than 3.2% alcohol by weight, and left the premises. This sale was consummated in the presence of Stella Lee Hill, the licensee. The facts as established, show that intoxicating liquors were sold by an agent of the Respondent, to-wit: Jacob Hill, in a county where the voters had decided against the sale of specific intoxicating liquors. Therefore, the Respondent has violated Section 568.02, F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license no. 67-129, series 1-COP, held by the Respondent, Stella Lee Hill, be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Collett, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Stella Lee Hill Munson Highway Route 6, Box 190 Milton, Florida
The Issue The issues in this case are framed by the Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), on or about January 22, 1992, in DBR Case No. TA-39-91-0555. The Notice to Show Cause alleges that the Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., d/b/a Mako's Bay Club, through its employees, sold alcoholic beverages to minors on November 6, 1991, in violation of Sections 562.11(1)(a) and 561.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). The Respondent denies the charges and also asserts mitigating circumstances and the Florida Responsible Vendor Act defense under Section 561.706, Fla. Stat. (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., operates several establishments known as Mako's Bay Club in Pinellas County, Florida. All are licensed for consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. All are relatively large establishments that feature multiple bars and dancing. All cater to a relatively young clientele. All stress strict compliance with the Beverage Law, including the prohibition against sales to minors, and all employees receive training approved by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which includes training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees receive this training either before they begin working or within approximately a month of beginning work. In addition, the management of the establishments hold periodic meetings that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. On or about January 23, 1991, the Respondent opened a Mako's Bay Club at 901 North Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida, under alcoholic beverage license number 39-03295, Series 4-COP. Before the establishment opened for business, all employees received training approved by the Department under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which included training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees have received this training either before beginning work or within approximately a month of beginning work. Generally, new employees are not permitted to serve alcoholic beverages until completing this training, except under supervision. In addition, the management holds monthly meetings with all staff that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. 1/ The Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, at least, allows underage clientele (18 years old and up) to enter the premises on Wednesdays and Saturdays. On these nights, as on all others, clientele who appear to be relatively young are "carded" at the entrance. If they are under 21, the back of their right hand is marked in permanent ink with a large "X". If they are 21 or over, they are given a tight-fitting band to wear around their wrist. Bartenders and servers know they can only serve someone with the wrist band and without the "X" mark. If a customer has neither, and appears to be possibly under 21, the bartender or waitress is to ask to see proof of age. The bar's bouncers circulate during the evening and are alert to underage drinking, loose wrist bands, and underaged clientele in the company of authorized drinkers having more than one drink in front of them. Although the Department has investigated complaints concerning underage sales at establishments operated by the Respondent, prior to November 6, 1991, the Department never made a case of selling to minors against any establishment operated by the Respondent, and the Department has considered the Respondent to be in compliance with the Beverage Law prohibiting sales to minors. In response to complaints of underage drinking in the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, the Department conducted an investigation that included sending undercover underage operatives (aides) into the establishment under the supervision of Department special agents. The aides are selected from among applicants who are college students 18 to 19 years old and who look their age. Often, they aspire to careers in law enforcement. They are instructed to carry correct identification, not to dress to appear older than they are, not to try to deceive the management and employees of the establishment they are investigating, and to give their correct age and identification if asked. Following these instructions, they are to enter the premises and see if they can buy a drink. They operate in pairs, and each pair is accompanied by special agent, who keeps them in sight, particularly when they are attempting to make a buy. The investigation of the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa took place on November 6, 1991. Three teams of special agents and aides entered the premises separately between approximately 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. After a short period of orienting themselves and spreading out in the establishment, the aides went to work. One, Asim Brown, a young-looking 18 year-old, ordered a Budweiser beer from a waitress the second time she approached the table where he and 19 year- old Belvin Sanchez were sitting. (Sanchez declined.) The waitress was new and, against normal procedures, was pressed into service before she was completely trained. She did not ask Brown's age or ask to see proof of age. She left, placed Brown's order at a bar, and later returned to the bar to get the beer to serve at their table. Brown paid for the drink. The transaction was observed by Special Agent Powell, who was seated nearby. Sanchez later went to the "front bar" where he ordered a wine cooler while being observed by Special Agent Powell. He put the money on the bar counter while waiting for his drink. The bartender served him and took the money. Brown went to another bar where he ordered another Budweiser beer, this time from a female bartender. She served him, and he paid for the beer. 19-year old Ricky Salgado, who was teamed with Special Agent Hamilton and aide Steve Towe, also ordered a wine cooler at the front bar. He was served and paid for his drink. Special Agent Hamilton observed this transaction. Apparently about this time, the bartender recognized Special Agent Hamilton and spread the word for the staff to be extra careful to be in compliance with the Beverage Law. The next time aide Sanchez tried to buy a wine cooler at the front bar, the bartender escorted him to a manager and had him evicted. When aide Towe tried to buy a drink, he was evicted, too. The female bartender who had sold beer to Brown later evicted both of the other aides, who were 17 year-old females, as well as two other minors, for trying to buy alcoholic beverages. The evictions ended the investigation. Later, the special agents returned to arrest those accused of selling to minors and to serve a Notice to Show Cause on the Respondent. The Respondent attacked the credibility of the Department's special agents and aides, essentially accusing them of fabricating the evidence, primarily on the basis that: (1) the Mako's Bay Club staff knew Special Agent Hamilton was on the premises and was being especially cautious; and (2) Brown could not have been served Budweiser. As to the first point, the evidence was not clear when Special Agent Hamilton was spotted and when all the staff became advised of his presences. As to the second point, the Respondent contends that the waitress from whom Brown and Powell say he purchased the Budweiser beer remembers that she did not serve any Budweiser that night. A bartender testified that she was assigned to his bar and was required by the bar's procedures to place her orders through him. He had $1 Corona specials at his bar, and he contends that it would have been rare for someone to order a Budweiser at his bar, rare enough for him and the waitress to remember it. He also claims to have checked his drink orders on the night in question and to have found no order for Budweiser beer. 2/ But the evidence is clear that the waitress had not completed her training and was working without supervision for the first time. She may not have followed all of the Mako's Bay Club's usual procedures. In addition, the evidence revealed that she was very upset at having been accused of selling to a minor because she was about to join the military and did not want a criminal record to come out of the incident. She had a motive to attempt to defend herself, perhaps by telling untruths about what happened.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence (including Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Club 99, Inc., is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 16- 1053-SRX, series 4-COP, doing business at 451 North State Road 7, Plantation, Broward County, Florida, as a bar and restaurant named Shangri-La. On August 7, 1984, the Plantation Police Department began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises known as Club 99, Inc. d/b/a Shangri-La, holding license number 16-1053-SRX, series 4-COP, located at 451 North State Road 7, Plantation, Broward County, Florida. On this date Detective Dan Anderson entered the licensed premises undercover and was introduced to a white male bartender identified as Malcolm Perkins. Detective Anderson engaged in a conversation with Perkins regarding a narcotic known as MDA. Perkins explained that MDA was a mixture of heroin and speed and further stated that he could obtain MDA for Anderson at a price of $70.00 a gram or $10.00 a "hit." Detective Anderson also engaged in conversation about MDA with Scott Kiehl, the assistant manager at the licensed premises. Later that same evening Detective Anderson engaged in a conversation about cocaine with a white male bartender on the licensed premises known as "Paul" or "Miss Kitty." None of the employees with whom Detective Anderson discussed MDA or cocaine appeared to be alarmed or concerned about the discussion. On August 10, 1984, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and engaged in a conversation with a white male bartender identified as Richard Christian. Detective Anderson asked if he could buy a half gram of cocaine and Richard Christian answered in the affirmative stating that the price would be $35.00 for one half gram. Detective Anderson gave $40.00 in U.S. currency to Christian and Christian covered the money with a cocktail napkin. Christian took the money and shortly thereafter he placed a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance under a cocktail napkin and pushed it across the bar towards Detective Anderson. At this same time, Christian said, "It is underneath." After looking under the napkin, Anderson took the cocktail napkin and the small plastic bag and placed them in his left front pants pocket. On August 17, 1984, Detective Anderson returned to the licensed premises at approximately 10:00 P.M. 2/ On this occasion he met with a white male bartender named Malcolm Perkins. Detective Anderson asked if Perkins had obtained any MDA for him and Perkins answered in the negative. Detective Anderson asked if Perkins could get him any cocaine. Perkins answered in the negative but pointed out a waiter named Everett Campbell and suggested that Anderson ask Campbell about cocaine. Detective Anderson then approached the waiter identified as Everett Campbell and asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative and said the price would be $35.00. Anderson agreed to the price. Later that evening Campbell approached Anderson and said that the person he gets the cocaine from was not in the bar and that, therefore, he could not deliver any cocaine to Detective Anderson. On August 18, 1984, at approximately 11:35 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises and met with Everett Campbell. This time Campbell told Anderson that he would be able to obtain some cocaine. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on August 19, 1984, Detective Anderson gave Campbell $40.00 in U.S. currency. Campbell took the money and walked to an unknown location off the premises and returned in about five minutes. Campbell then handed Detective Anderson a small plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Nothing was wrapped around the plastic bag. Detective Anderson held up the plastic bag to inspect it before putting it in his pocket. The other bartenders and a large number of patrons were nearby and could have seen what was happening. On August 21, 1984, at approximately 11:00 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises. Anderson struck up a conversation with a white male patron identified as Dion Burl. Detective Anderson asked Burl if he could obtain some cocaine for Anderson. Burl replied in the affirmative and stated that it would cost $40.00 for one half gram. Anderson placed a cocktail napkin over two $20.00 bills and handed them to Burl. Burl took the money and walked to an unknown location. At approximately 11:30 P.M., Burl returned. He handed Detective Anderson a white cocktail napkin and a small clear plastic bag that contained a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson took the substance and placed it in his pants pocket. On August 23, 1984, Detective Anderson returned to the licensed premises and met with Everett Campbell at approximately 11:00 P.M. Campbell was working as a waiter that night. Detective Anderson asked Campbell if he could obtain a half gram of cocaine for Anderson. Campbell answered in the affirmative and said it would cost $40.00. Detective Anderson gave Campbell the money and a while later Campbell handed him a magazine titled "David" and said, "It's inside." Inside the magazine Detective Anderson found a small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson held the plastic bag up to inspect it before putting it in his pocket. On August 24, 1984, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises again. At approximately the same time Investigator Oliva entered in an undercover capacity as back up. Upon entering the premises Detective Anderson met with white male bartender Richard Christian and both engaged in general conversation. After a short period of time Detective Anderson asked Christian if he had any cocaine. Christian stated that be did not have any right now but for Anderson to go ahead and give Christian $35.00, and that he would have it later. Anderson complied with Christian's request and gave Christian $35.00 U.S. currency. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva seated themselves at a table in the dining area of the licensed premises, where they were greeted by Everett Campbell. Shortly thereafter Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson some cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative. Thereupon Anderson folded two $20.00 bills, placed them under a napkin, and gave them to Campbell. Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva then saw Campbell go into the kitchen area several times. About fifteen or twenty minutes later, Campbell approached the table where Anderson and Oliva were seated and placed a folded cocktail napkin in front of Detective Anderson and said, "It's in there." Anderson unfolded the napkin and found that it contained a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson removed the plastic bag from the napkin and inspected the plastic bag by holding it up to eye level for a few seconds. Detective Anderson saw other patrons looking at him when he raised the plastic bag to eve level. After inspecting the plastic bag, Anderson put it in his pocket. At approximately midnight of the evening of August 24-25, 1984, Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva left the restaurant portion of the licensed premises and proceeded to the upstairs portion of the licensed premises, which is another lounge. After a short period of time, Anderson and Oliva were greeted by a waiter identified as Adam Burnett. Anderson and Oliva negotiated with Burnett for the purchase of cocaine. In approximately five minutes Burnett returned to the table where the officers were seated and stated that he could obtain a better quality of cocaine for $40.00 in U.S. currency for one half gram. At this time Investigator Oliva stated that he would take the better quality of cocaine and gave Burnett $40.00 in U.S. currency. A few minutes later Investigator Oliva followed Burnett into the mens' restroom. Once inside the mens' room, Burnett handed Oliva a white cocktail napkin. Oliva took the napkin and unwrapped it. Inside was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva held the plastic bag up to eye level to view its contents and discussed with Burnett the fact that the white powdery substance had a lot of "rocks" in it. Oliva then stated to Burnett that he was not going to do the cocaine in the bathroom because he did not trust anyone. Burnett's reply was, "It's okay. Everyone does it in here anyway." Oliva and Burnett then left the restroom. A few minutes later that same evening, an unknown white male employee who had been previously working at a bar located in the downstairs portion of the premises approached Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva and stated to Anderson, "Richard wants to see you downstairs". Anderson and Oliva proceeded downstairs to the bar located by the kitchen entrance. There Detective Anderson met with bartender Richard Christian, who told Anderson to reach into his shirt pocket. Anderson reached in Christian's shirt pocket and pulled out a folded napkin, and a small clear plastic bag which contained a white powdery substance. When Detective Anderson started to open the cocktail napkin, Christian put his hands out to close Anderson's hands in an effort to keep other people from seeing the bag. On August 29, 1984, Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. At approximately 10:00 P.M., Detective Anderson was introduced to a white male waiter identified as Tony Brown. Anderson and Brown engaged in general conversation and after a short period of time Anderson asked Brown if he could get a half gram of cocaine. Brown stated that be should be able to obtain one and that he would check around and get back to Detective Anderson. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Brown approached Detective Anderson and stated that he had checked around, but was unable to obtain any cocaine. On the same date, at approximately 11:30 P.M., Detective Anderson met with waiter Adam Burnett and engaged in general conversation and after a short period of time Anderson asked Burnett if Burnett could get him a half gram of cocaine. Burnett replied by stating, "Wait 'til Gus gets here." Burnett further stated that the price would be $35.00 for one half gram. At approximately 12:10 A.M., on August 30, 1984, Anderson handed Burnett two $20.00 bills. About twenty minutes later, Burnett handed Anderson a folded napkin. Anderson unfolded the napkin and found a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson then placed the clear plastic bag in his left front pocket. On the evening of August 30, 1984, Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises again. Investigator Oliva and Detective Vadnal entered the premises at about the same time in an undercover capacity as back up. Detective Anderson met with a white male patron previously identified as Dion Burl. Anderson asked Burl if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burl replied in the affirmative. Detective Anderson then handed Burl two folded $20.00 bills, which were wrapped in a cocktail napkin. Burl took the money and left. At approximately 11:50 P.M., Burl returned to the upstairs portion of the premises and sat at a table with Detective Anderson. At this time Burl handed Anderson a folded cocktail napkin and inside the folded napkin was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. On that same evening, August 30, 1984, Detective Anderson met with a white male waiter identified as Tony Brown who was working at the upstairs portion of the licensed premises. Anderson and Brown engaged in a conversation while standing approximately three feet from Investigator Oliva. Anderson asked Brown if Brown could obtain a half gram of cocaine. Brown replied by stating, "It will be about twenty minutes." Detective Anderson gave two $20.00 bills to Brown and told Brown that he would be in the downstairs portion of the licensed premises. At approximately 12:10 A.M, on August 31, 1984, Detective Anderson, while standing at the downstairs portion of the licensed premises was approached by Brown, who handed Anderson a folded white cocktail napkin which contained a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson inspected the plastic bag and then placed the napkin and its contents in his right rear pants pocket. On or about August 31, 1984, at approximately 11:30 P.M., Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. At about the same time Detective Vadnal and Investigator Oliva entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity as backup. Shortly after midnight (in the early morning minutes of September 1, 1984) Detective Anderson met with white male waiter Adam Burnett and engaged in a general conversation. Detective Anderson asked Burnett if Burnett could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burnett replied in the affirmative. Thereupon Detective Anderson gave Burnett $40.00 in U.S. currency by laying two $20.00 bills on a cocktail tray Burnett was carrying. Burnett walked away from Detective Anderson to an unknown portion of the licensed premises. A few minutes later Burnett returned to where Detective Anderson was standing and handed Anderson a magazine titled "David" and said, "It's in the magazine." Detective Anderson, who was standing near the dance floor of the licensed premises, took the magazine and flipped through its pages, at which time a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance fell to the floor. Several patrons standing in the vicinity of Anderson saw the clear plastic bag fall to the floor and laughed at Anderson's clumsiness. Detective Anderson then picked up the clear plastic bag and held it up to eye level to inspect it. He then placed it in his pocket. On the evening of September 5, 1984, Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. Shortly thereafter Detective Vadnal and Investigator Oliva entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity as back up. Detective Anderson met with a white male patron previously identified as Dion Burl and asked Burl if he could purchase a half gram of cocaine. After some conversation, Anderson gave two $20.00 bills to Burl. Detective Anderson then told Burl that he would be sitting on a speaker near the west end of the dance floor and that Burl could deliver the cocaine to him there. At approximately 10:45 P.M., Burl approached Detective Anderson, who was seated on a speaker by the dance floor, and sat next to Anderson. Burl then handed a folded cocktail napkin to Detective Anderson. Inside the cocktail napkin was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson examined the plastic bag and then placed it in his pocket. After concluding the cocaine purchase of September 5, 1984, at the licensed premises, Detective Anderson remained on the licensed premises and during the early morning hours of September 6, 1984, he met with a white male waiter previously identified as Adam Burnett. Detective Anderson asked Burnett if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burnett stated that "Gus," referring to the supplier, was not yet at the bar, but that he should be able to obtain some later. A few minutes later, Burnett approached Anderson and stated that Gus was present and Anderson handed Burnett two folded $20.00 bills in U.S. currency. Anderson then stated to Burnett that he would be in the downstairs portion of the premises. A short while later Burnett approached Anderson and handed Anderson what appeared to be a mixed drink with a napkin wrapped around the glass. As he handed the glass to Anderson, Burnett said, "It's just water, but look in the napkin." Anderson set the drink down and unfolded the napkin to expose a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson placed the plastic bag in his pocket. At approximately 12:30 A.M. that same evening (prior to purchasing the cocaine from Burnett), Detective Anderson met with a white male waiter previously identified as Everett Campbell and engaged in a general conversation with Campbell. Shortly thereafter Detective Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Anderson gave Campbell two folded $20.00 bills in U.S. currency. Approximately two minutes later Campbell returned from an unknown location in the restaurant area of the licensed premises and handed Anderson a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson took the plastic bag and held it up to inspect it. The bartender at bar number two could have seen Anderson inspecting the plastic bag. Anderson then placed the plastic bag in his pocket. On the evening of September 10, 1984, Detectives Anderson and Vadnal and Investigator Oliva returned to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Anderson engaged in a brief conversation with a white male waiter previously identified as Everett Campbell, who was not working on this date. Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative. Detective Anderson then handed Campbell a $50.00 bill, which Campbell took. Campbell took the $50.00 bill to a bartender, received change for it, and gave Anderson $10.00. Campbell then went out the front door. At approximately 1:00 A.M. on September 11, 1984, Campbell reentered the licensed premises and met with Detective Anderson who was standing next to Investigator Oliva. At this time Campbell handed Anderson a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. This transaction was observed by an on-duty white male bartender identified only as "Don" and by a white male patron who was standing on the opposite side of Anderson. Detective Anderson took the clear plastic bag and placed it on the bar counter where it remained for two or three minutes in plain view of the bartender. Then Anderson took the plastic bag and attempted to place it in his pants pocket at which time the small plastic bag containing the white powdery substance fell to the floor where Detective Vadnal, Investigator Oliva, and the white male patron previously mentioned observed the same. Detective Anderson retrieved the clear plastic bag from the floor and placed it in his pants pocket. At all times material to this case, the following were employees on the licensed premises. Malcolm Perkins, Richard Christian, Everett Campbell, Adam Burnett, Tony Brown and a bartender identified only as "Don." Each and every one of the clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance which were sold to Detective Anderson and to Investigator Oliva on the licensed premises during August and September of 1984, were properly examined by a forensic chemist. The contents of each and every one of those clear plastic bags was found to contain cocaine. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the 5-week period from August 7, 1984, through September 11, 1984, the following events occurred on the licensed premises: 8/07/84 Employee Malcolm Perkins told Detective Anderson he could obtain MDA. 8/07/84 Assistant Manager Scott Kiehl and employee "Paul/Miss Kitty" discussed drugs with Detective Anderson without alarm or concern. 8/10/84 Employee Richard Christian sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/17/84 Employee Malcolm Perkins told Detective Anderson that employee Everett Campbell could obtain cocaine for Anderson. 8/17/84 Employee Everett Campbell agreed to sell cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/19/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/21/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/23/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/24/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/25/84 Employee Richard Christian sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/25/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Investigator Oliva. 8/29/84 Employee Tony Brown offered to sell cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/30/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/30/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/31/84 Employee Tony Brown sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/01/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/05/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/06/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/06/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/11/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. All of the events summarized immediately above took place on the licensed premises during business hours when other employees and patrons were also present on the licensed premises. With the one exception which occurred on August 25, 1984, when Richard Christian reached out to close Detective Anderson's hands so that Anderson would not display a plastic bag containing cocaine, the employees at the licensed premises did not express any concern about any of the drug transactions and did not take any action to prevent or discourage them. Richard DeSanto is the sole officer, director, and shareholder of Club 99, Inc., the licensee in this case. Richard DeSanto is a self-employed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar. He has been a practicing attorney for six years and maintains an active trial practice. DeSanto does not devote very much time to the management of the licensed premises. The day-to-day management is conducted by a manager and an assistant manager, both hired by DeSanto. The manager is Tommy Engelbrecht and the assistant manager is Scotty Kiehl. DeSanto relies on Engelbrecht to relay DeSanto's instructions about the operation of the licensed premises to the other employees and also relies on Engelbrecht to report back to him regarding any problems in the operation of the licensed premises. Engelbrecht does the hiring and firing at the licensed premises and many of the employees on the licensed premises would not even recognize DeSanto. DeSanto visits the licensed premises about twice a month on a deliberately irregular schedule. Some of his visits are as brief as a few minutes; others are as long as several hours. The primary purpose of his visits is to attend to such things as reviewing business records and signing the payroll. DeSanto has established as policies that intoxicated or disorderly patrons should not be permitted to enter the licensed premises and that patrons who become disorderly once they are inside the licensed premises should be ejected. It is also a policy of the club that if the employees become aware of any drug activity on the licensed premises they are supposed to report the incident to the manager or assistant manager, and the manager or assistant manager is supposed to eject whoever is involved in the drug activity. On three or four occasions during the past year or so patrons have been ejected for drug activities on the licensed premises. DeSanto has discussed drug problems and their prevention with Engelbrecht. All new employees are told about the drug policy at the licensed premises when they are first hired. Engelbrecht has also held a few employee meetings at which he reminded employees of the drug policy. The drug policy established by DeSanto appears to include a policy of firing any employee who is caught with drugs on the premises. During the past year three waiters have been fired on the spot for drug use. In the past year the manager has also been told of three or four instances of drug dealing on the licensed premises. 3/ There are no written personnel rules and regulations. Thus, all of DeSanto's policies are communicated orally to Engelbrecht and are then communicated orally by Engelbrecht to the employees. The entire management of the licensed premises, including management practices concerning hiring of personnel, appear to be very informal. Further, the personnel policies regarding drug activities on the licensed premises are either ineffectively communicated or ineffectively enforced. For example, none of the drug transactions engaged in by Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva were reported to the manager or assistant manager, and no efforts were made to eject Anderson or Oliva for engaging in drug transactions or attempting to engage in drug transactions, even though some of their transactions were observed by employees who were not involved in the transactions. Further, at least one employee (Richard Christian) knew that a patron named Gus was regularly dealing in cocaine on the licensed premises, but no action was taken to eject Gus. 4/ Yet another example of the informality of the licensee's personnel practices is that even though Englebrecht had recently hired a bartender named "Don" and had supposedly carefully checked with Don's references, Englebrecht could not remember Don's last name. When alcoholic beverage licenses were renewed in March of 1983, the DABT sent information to all licensees advising them that the DABT was willing to provide them with suggestions for controlling drug activity on the licensed premises. DeSanto did not take advantage of this opportunity to obtain suggestions from DABT because he did not think he had a drug problem on the licensed premises. In making the foregoing findings of fact I have given careful consideration to the proposed findings of fact contained in the parties' post- hearing submissions to the Hearing Officer. To the extent that findings of fact proposed by either party are not incorporated in the foregoing findings of fact, the proposed findings have been specifically rejected because they were not supported by competent substantial evidence, because they were contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, because they involve incidental details which were not essential to the resolution of this case, or because they were irrelevant or immaterial.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 16-1053-SRX, Series 4-COP, issued to Club 99, Inc., trading as Shangri-La. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Alice Waldo, holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 45- 00293, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as the SILVER DOLLAR CAFE located in Lake County, Florida. On or about February 4, 1989, an investigator employed by Petitioner entered the licensed premises of Respondent. While in Respondent's facility, the investigator observed several patrons smoking a substance, which by its smell and usage, he believed to be marijuana. The investigator then met with a patron, ordered a small quantity of crack cocaine and handed the patron some money for the forthcoming purchase. The patron then asked Respondent to hold the money while he left the premises to retrieve the controlled substance from his automobile. Shortly thereafter, the patron returned with the cocaine. The investigator showed the substance to Respondent's daughter, who had taken her mother's place at the bar. The purpose of displaying the drug to the proprietor, or the proprietor's daughter in this instance, was to later illustrate that Respondent condoned the use and sale of the drug in connection with her licensed premises. A field test by the investigator and a later laboratory test confirmed the identity of the substance purchased as crack cocaine. Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility on or about February 10, 1989. On this occasion, the investigator purchased a quantity of marijuana from a female patron, then took the substance over to the bar where he proceeded to roll a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Petitioner. At no time did Petitioner inform the investigator that controlled substances were not allowed on the licensed premises. Upon later laboratory analysis, the substance was confirmed to be marijuana. Upon leaving Respondent's facility on February 10, 1989, Petitioner's investigator met an individual within 10 feet of the front door of the premises who sold him a quantity of a substance later determined by laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. On or about February 24, 1989, Petitioner's investigator entered Respondent's facility. On the front porch of Respondent's facility, the investigator purchased a quantity of a substance later determined by the investigator's field test and a subsequent laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. After completing the purchase of the substance, the investigator went inside the facility, placed the material on the counter and recounted to Respondent that it had just been purchased on the front porch. Respondent made no reply to the investigator's announcement and, instead, complied with his request for change for a $20 bill. Upon receipt of the change, the investigator wrapped the crack cocaine in a $1 bill in Respondent's presence. On February 28, 1989, Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility. He approached a black female named "Lilly" and gave her $20 for the purchase of crack cocaine. However, after the lady accepted the $20 and left to retrieve the cocaine, she did not return. The investigator complained to Respondent that "Lilly" had failed to deliver the drug to him. The investigator also told Respondent that the lady could keep the $20 if Respondent would get him some of the drug. At that time, Respondent referred the investigator to a group of three male patrons on the front porch of the facility who appeared to be smoking marijuana. At no time during this incident did Respondent take any steps to prevent the use of any controlled substances on the licensed premises. Subsequently, Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's facility on or about March 4, 1989. He purchased a beer and went outside to the front porch of the facility. He observed a number of furtive transactions where currency was passed between certain individuals. He noticed Respondent go to one of the automobiles in the facility parking lot, get into the automobile, engage in conversation with the occupants and shortly thereafter emerge from the automobile. Respondent went back into the facility. The investigator approached a black male and gave him $20 for some crack cocaine. The black male took the investigator's money, then went directly to the automobile where Respondent had been previously. He returned shortly thereafter to the investigator with two pieces of a substance which later tested positive, via field test and laboratory analysis, as cocaine. During another visit to Respondent's facility on or about March 9, 1989, Petitioner's investigator observed a patron rolling what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in Respondent's presence. While Respondent took no action to prohibit the use or possession of the apparently controlled substance, she did get her coat and leave shortly after the investigator's arrival. On or about March 11, 1989, Petitioner's investigator reentered Respondent's facility. The investigator purchased a small quantity of crack cocaine from a black male on the front porch of the facility. The investigator then took the controlled substance inside the building and displayed it to Respondent, telling her that he had just obtained the drug on the porch. Respondent asked the investigator if he was going to smoke the drug, and he replied yes. Later, a field test and laboratory analysis confirmed the drug to be cocaine. On or about March 17, 1989, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's facility. This time the investigator purchased a small quantity of a drug on the front porch of the building which, upon subsequent field test and laboratory analysis, was confirmed to be cocaine. After completing the purchase, the investigator took the substance inside and showed it to Respondent. Later in the evening, the investigator engaged Respondent in conversation on the front porch and related to her that he had observed numerous drug transactions taking place in her facility. Respondent smiled in acknowledgment of the investigator's statement and replied that she certainly hoped he was not a policeman. He told her that he was not a policeman. Respondent took no action to prohibit further use or transactions relating to drugs on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's beverage license bearing number 45-00293, Series 2- COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1989 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: EDWIN R. IVY, ESQUIRE BOX 3223 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 THOMAS A. KLEIN, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007
